151–160 of 645 posts
I think it's a pretty open secret that Twitter is a fairly broken company. It's no surprise that their security practices are bad, because all their practices are bad. It's also very difficult to view this in isolation when you have the timeline of (1): Fired in January, nothing happens. (2) Musk makes offer for twitter then reneges. (3) Months before the lawsuit gets decided re-emerges with accusations. What happene…
I think it's a pretty open secret that Twitter is a fairly broken company. It's no surprise that their security practices are bad, because all their practices are bad. It's also very difficult to view this in isolation when you have the timeline of (1): Fired in January, nothing happens. (2) Musk makes offer for twitter then reneges. (3) Months before the lawsuit gets decided re-emerges with accusations. What happene…
Immediately thought of this item that came up in my Twitter news feed last week [0]
>> "Elon Musk went to Kevin McCarthy’s Party last night in Wyoming—to celebrate Liz Cheney’s loss. While speaking at the MAGA party, Musk asked everyone to deny that he was there. Musk made sure that no press was allowed anywhere near the property — then people started posting selfies"
I'm sure Musk wasn't there to privately insult the Republican leaders by acting like they're the ugly person that they'll date in private but don't want anyone knowing about — he's almost surely seeking some kind of influence/benefit.
Maybe coincidence, but I certainly wonder about the purpose?
[0] https://twitter.com/FriendEden100/status/1559974086264209414
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't claim Mudge was infiltrating Twitter, nor that his claims to bad security are false, nor that it is not dangerous to use Twitter if you value privacy. Bad security at Twitter, or any other social media is a given. Remember they're in the business of selling personal data. My claim is that this specific story which is most likely true but in no way surprising gets amplified right now because some specific powe…
Or maybe, you know, the media finds this story interesting because this is an extremely visible company with tons of influence on narratives around the world. Who are these "powerful people"? And why do they care about Twitter so much? Most powerful people aren't even ON Twitter.
Honestly, can you really trust anything about major social media sites any more? Has Twitter ever been in the news for properly making even a thousand people successful from scratch really ever in the product's life? They have pipelines of exploitation for everyone that gets "discovered" into contractual nightmare deals, they require tons of free labor and costly hurdles just to become notable and visible on the plat…
> They have pipelines of exploitation for everyone that gets "discovered" into contractual nightmare deals, they require tons of free labor and costly hurdles just to become notable and visible on the platform For what it's worth, as someone running a high-five-digits account, it is possible to get notable on Twitter - you just have to put in a ton of work to make quality content people are actually interested in.
Hard work for free does not make sense in this type of post-pandemic world we live in... It's too "Marie Antoinette-esque" of people to say it's anywhere near reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is this a story? Cynically, because it's twitter, and it's trendy amongst a certain subset of the population to bash social media in general and twitter in particular. And I think your point is fair. (FWIW, I think social media has if not caused, then certainly exacerbated, some major problems at individual, societal, and global levels, but by no means do I think twitter is the biggest contributor. I don't thin…
My reasoned mind says it's due to the recent disclosure in Twitter due to linking of phone numbers to people, while my other mind says it's Elon finding anything to make Twitter give up their case.
Except like the linkedin "hack" which was just a scrape of peoples profiles, the twitter "hack" was someone running phone numbers through the "upload you contacts and find your friends account" feature.
They are both barely stories, except to remind people that posting stuff publicly is public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe, you know, the media finds this story interesting because this is an extremely visible company with tons of influence on narratives around the world. Who are these "powerful people"? And why do they care about Twitter so much? Most powerful people aren't even ON Twitter.
I know about a certain person who has been doing very unorthodox moves towards the acquisition of Twitter since earlier this year; this person, as well as all the wealthy stakeholders who have a lot to lose if the deal goes through in an unprofitable way, would certainly gain a lot by amplifying this story with a few grands in the pockets of the CNN business editors.
Are they enamored with him - for sure, are they in his actual pocket? Doubt it.
God Mode, from my understanding, allows a Twitter employee to have access to an account and allows for a post to be made, under that account's id, without the account being notified or seeing the post show up in their own timeline. Is this an accurate statement? If so, why did nearly 1000 employees (12% of the workforce) have access to this mode before it was restricted, and what's the business case for that?
I think it's a pretty open secret that Twitter is a fairly broken company. It's no surprise that their security practices are bad, because all their practices are bad. It's also very difficult to view this in isolation when you have the timeline of (1): Fired in January, nothing happens. (2) Musk makes offer for twitter then reneges. (3) Months before the lawsuit gets decided re-emerges with accusations. What happene…
I think it's a pretty open secret that Twitter is a fairly broken company. It's no surprise that their security practices are bad, because all their practices are bad. It's also very difficult to view this in isolation when you have the timeline of (1): Fired in January, nothing happens. (2) Musk makes offer for twitter then reneges. (3) Months before the lawsuit gets decided re-emerges with accusations. What happene…
> Especially since the Whistleblower seems to basically be blowing the whilst on himself. Whistleblowers are by definition insiders.
A typical whistleblower would say "There were security problems, and the head of security ignored them."
Here, it's "I was the head of security, and security was shitty. I was doing a shitty job, and that's a terrible scandal!"